Giuseppe Citerio1, Mauro Oddo, Fabio Silvio Taccone. 1. aDepartment of Health Science, University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza bNeurointensive Care, Department of Emergency and Intensive Care, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy cDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, CHUV-Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland dDepartment of Intensive Care, Hopital Erasme Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Multimodal monitoring (MMM) is routinely applied in neurointensive care. Unfortunately, there is no robust evidence on which MMM-derived physiologic variables are the most clinically relevant, how and when they should be monitored, and whether MMM impacts outcome. The complexity is even higher because once the data are continuously collected, interpretation and integration of these complex physiologic events into targeted individualized care is still embryonic. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent clinical investigation mainly focused on intracranial pressure, perfusion of the brain, and oxygen availability along with electrophysiology. Moreover, a series of articles reviewing the available evidence on all the MMM tools, giving practical recommendations for bedside MMM, has been published, along with other consensus documents on the role of neuromonitoring and electroencephalography in this setting. SUMMARY: MMM allows comprehensive exploration of the complex pathophysiology of acute brain damage and, depending on the different configuration of the pathological condition we are treating, the application of targeted individualized care. Unfortunately, we still lack robust evidence on how to better integrate MMM-derived information at the bedside to improve patient management. Advanced informatics is promising and may provide us a supportive tool to interpret physiologic events and guide pathophysiological-based therapeutic decisions.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Multimodal monitoring (MMM) is routinely applied in neurointensive care. Unfortunately, there is no robust evidence on which MMM-derived physiologic variables are the most clinically relevant, how and when they should be monitored, and whether MMM impacts outcome. The complexity is even higher because once the data are continuously collected, interpretation and integration of these complex physiologic events into targeted individualized care is still embryonic. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent clinical investigation mainly focused on intracranial pressure, perfusion of the brain, and oxygen availability along with electrophysiology. Moreover, a series of articles reviewing the available evidence on all the MMM tools, giving practical recommendations for bedside MMM, has been published, along with other consensus documents on the role of neuromonitoring and electroencephalography in this setting. SUMMARY: MMM allows comprehensive exploration of the complex pathophysiology of acute brain damage and, depending on the different configuration of the pathological condition we are treating, the application of targeted individualized care. Unfortunately, we still lack robust evidence on how to better integrate MMM-derived information at the bedside to improve patient management. Advanced informatics is promising and may provide us a supportive tool to interpret physiologic events and guide pathophysiological-based therapeutic decisions.
Authors: Mejdeddine Al Barajraji; Elisa Bogossian; Olivier Dewitte; Nicolas Gaspard; Salim El Hadwe; Andrea Minini; Joachim Andre; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Sophie Schuind; Sami Barrit Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Jens P Dreier; Martin Fabricius; Cenk Ayata; Oliver W Sakowitz; C William Shuttleworth; Christian Dohmen; Rudolf Graf; Peter Vajkoczy; Raimund Helbok; Michiyasu Suzuki; Alois J Schiefecker; Sebastian Major; Maren Kl Winkler; Eun-Jeung Kang; Denny Milakara; Ana I Oliveira-Ferreira; Clemens Reiffurth; Gajanan S Revankar; Kazutaka Sugimoto; Nora F Dengler; Nils Hecht; Brandon Foreman; Bart Feyen; Daniel Kondziella; Christian K Friberg; Henning Piilgaard; Eric S Rosenthal; M Brandon Westover; Anna Maslarova; Edgar Santos; Daniel Hertle; Renán Sánchez-Porras; Sharon L Jewell; Baptiste Balança; Johannes Platz; Jason M Hinzman; Janos Lückl; Karl Schoknecht; Michael Schöll; Christoph Drenckhahn; Delphine Feuerstein; Nina Eriksen; Viktor Horst; Julia S Bretz; Paul Jahnke; Michael Scheel; Georg Bohner; Egill Rostrup; Bente Pakkenberg; Uwe Heinemann; Jan Claassen; Andrew P Carlson; Christina M Kowoll; Svetlana Lublinsky; Yoash Chassidim; Ilan Shelef; Alon Friedman; Gerrit Brinker; Michael Reiner; Sergei A Kirov; R David Andrew; Eszter Farkas; Erdem Güresir; Hartmut Vatter; Lee S Chung; K C Brennan; Thomas Lieutaud; Stephane Marinesco; Andrew Ir Maas; Juan Sahuquillo; Markus A Dahlem; Frank Richter; Oscar Herreras; Martyn G Boutelle; David O Okonkwo; M Ross Bullock; Otto W Witte; Peter Martus; Arn Mjm van den Maagdenberg; Michel D Ferrari; Rick M Dijkhuizen; Lori A Shutter; Norberto Andaluz; André P Schulte; Brian MacVicar; Tomas Watanabe; Johannes Woitzik; Martin Lauritzen; Anthony J Strong; Jed A Hartings Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Rupert Faltermeier; Martin A Proescholdt; Sylvia Bele; Alexander Brawanski Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2015-11-29 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Martin A Proescholdt; Rupert Faltermeier; Sylvia Bele; Alexander Brawanski Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Janos Lückl; Coline L Lemale; Vasilis Kola; Viktor Horst; Uldus Khojasteh; Ana I Oliveira-Ferreira; Sebastian Major; Maren K L Winkler; Eun-Jeung Kang; Karl Schoknecht; Peter Martus; Jed A Hartings; Johannes Woitzik; Jens P Dreier Journal: Brain Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 13.501